Dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6; Pentecost 4A)

“What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

Paul, in typical style, starts into this section of his letter to the Romans (6:1–14) with a string of questions—interrupted only by his typical exclamation, “by no means!” The chapter divisions in our Bibles lead us to read the text in self-contained chunks—and the lectionary, by choosing clearly-defined collections of verses, exacerbates this tendency. But if we read in the way that the letter was written—as a continuous stream, with no chapter divisions or verse markings—we can see the downside of this approach.

What we know as Romans 6:1–14 (offered under a heading such as “dying and rising with Christ”) is actually a continuation of the discussion in the previous section, about sin. The sentence immediately before these words (5:21) refers to “sin exercising dominion in death”; this passage explores how the dominion of death is dealt with by Christ. Before that, Paul has undertaken a discussion of the sin of all people (5:18–20), citing the effect of “the one man’s trespass”.

That passage in turn has been a development from the claim that “sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (5:12), itself introducing a carefully-structured argument, proceeding step by step through parallel clauses, using a typical Jewish line of argument whereby the one (Adam) functions as a representative of all (humanity). This line of argument sets up the basis for the claim that it is the work of another one man (Christ) to provide “grace exercis[ing] dominion through justification leading to eternal life” (5:21).

And the pinning of the blame for universal sinfulness on the one representative man, Adam, itself is an exposition of the earlier claim that “while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (5:8), which in turn rests on the need for God to demonstrate how sinful people are “reckoned as righteous”—something asserted at 4:6 and explained through a midrashic treatment of Gen 15:6 throughout Rom 4:1–25.

And Paul’s midrash of the Abraham story in turn expounds the tightly-declared announcement of 3:21–26, concerning how God “showed his righteousness” (3:25–26) by means of “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith” (3:24–25).

This sacrifice of atonement itself is premised on the understanding that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23), which is a statement which repeats and refines the earlier “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (3:9), a gathering up of those under law who have sinned (2:1–29) and those not under law who also have sinned (1:18–32)—which in turn explains the need for the Gospel of which Paul was not ashamed, “the gospel [which is] the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16).

Or, to put it all the other way around (as Paul writes it), there is good news (1:16–17) which deals with the sinfulness of Gentiles (1:18–31) and of Jews (2:1–29), a universal sinfulness (3:1–20) which God has dealt with through the sacrifice of Jesus (3:21–31), consistent with the pattern already shown centuries before in Abraham, of “reckoning as righteous” those who have faith (4:1–25), which manifests God’s grace (5:1–11); all of which has been necessary because of the introduction of sin through one man, Adam (5:12–21).

And so: “What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means!” (6:1).

Turning to the particular verses offered by the lectionary for this coming Sunday (6:1b—11): what do we find? The rhetorical pattern of the diatribe is evident here, also. The posing of a rhetorical question, followed by the definitive “by no means!”, followed up with further rhetorical questioning, is characteristic of a diatribe—a form that was developed in Ancient Greece and which was widely practised by Greek rhetoricians, philosophers, and teachers during the Hellenistic period.

Paul wants to explain that baptism signals the way that Jesus deals with human sinfulness. “Do you not know that …” (6:3) is the typical way to introduce a new matter for consideration (see also 6:16; 7:1; 11:2; 1 Cor 3:16: 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24). In this case, the standard question introduces the subject of baptism. Whilst baptism is a sign of belonging to the community of faith, as is stated in 1 Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:27, baptism is also a joining with Christ into the mystical union that characterises Paul’s thinking.

In other letters, Paul writes about “being found in him” (Phil 3:9),

“In Christ” appears frequently in Paul’s letters: grace is given “in Christ” (1 Cor 1:4), redemption is “in Christ” (Rom 3:24), sanctification is “in Christ” (1 Cor 1:2), justification is “in Christ” (Gal 2:16–17), reconciliation is “in Christ” (2 Cor 5:19), “the blessing of Abraham” is “in Christ” (Gal 3:14), peace guards the hearts and minds of believers “in Christ” (Phil 4:7), “the riches in glory” of God are “in Christ” (Phil 4:19), encouragement is “in Christ” (Phil 2:1), and eternal life is “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). Or, as Paul writes to the Galatians, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20).

So this mystical union with Christ, which shapes the life of a believer, is both symbolised and, it would seem, enacted through the ritual of baptism. Paul here pushes beyond the forensic argumentation of the previous chapters, where the status of “being justified” is a transaction that is effected by placing trust (faith) in what Jesus has done, and is doing. (Jesus, or rather Christ, for Paul, is always both past and present; perhaps, even more the active presence in a believer’s life, that the historical figure of Galilee.)

Being baptised is being “buried with him by baptism into death” which leads, inevitably, to emerging from that state into “newness of life”: “just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). To drive the point home, Paul restates this union in verse 5: “if we have been united with him in a death like his”, through the act of baptism, then “we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his”, as we emerge from the waters of baptism. The dynamic of what is believed to take place in baptism is clear.

Then he finds another way to describe this process, introducing it by another stock standard introductory phrase, “we know” (6:6). Paul uses this phrase also at 6:9, and quite regularly elsewhere in Romans (2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22, 28) as well,as in other letters )1 Cor 8:1, 4; 13:9; 2 Cor 1:7; 5:1, 6, 16; Gal 2:16; 1 Thess 1:4). In each case, the phrase functions to underline and reaffirm something that Paul presumably has previously communicated to those hearing his letter.

So, for a third time, Paul states the first, most important, half dynamic: “we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed” (6:6). The result is that “we might no longer be enslaved to sin”, repeated and amplified in the next clause, “for whoever has died is freed from sin” (6:7).

Then, Paul moves to the second half of this dynamic: “if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him” (6:8). Death, in the baptismal dynamic, leads inevitably into life. That is the value that it has for believers; an assurance of a “newness of life” in union with Christ, as believers “live with him”.

To make sure the Roman’s grasp the point, Paul says, once again, “we know”. The style of Romans is more oral rhetoric than written argumentation; I always like to imagine Paul, his brow furrowed, his shoulders slightly stooped, pacing up and down his small room, as Tertius (the scribe who actually wrote the letter, according to Rom 16:22) furiously scribbles the phrases that pour forth from Paul’s mouth. Syntactical omissions and irregularities, peculiar grammatical forms, idiosyncratic vocabulary: all of this is due to the lack of a careful, third-party, editorial eye. The letter was dictated, scribed, and sent off post haste!

At any rate, “we know”, says Paul, “that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him, [for] the death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God” (6:9–10).

Which brings us to the punchline for this particular collection of verses. Nothing new is said; the same thing has been said four or five times, and that one thing has been said, with variations throughout, to drive the point home. For the Romans, hearing this letter read in their various house gatherings, the consequence of their baptism, and of what God has done in Jesus, and of how they are to understand God’s atoning actions, and of how they are regard themselves, as justified by faith: “so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11).

And so the conclusion itself is then expanded, once again by stylistically varied repetitions, in 6:12–14, ending with the definitive conclusion, “sin will have no dominion over you”, and the strong and clear affirmation, “you are not under law, but under grace” (6:14).

*****

On the central theme of the letter to the Romans, see

The righteous-justice of God, a gift to all humanity (Romans; Year A)

On the use of the diatribe form in Romans, and particularly in 4:1–25, see

Reckoning what is right (Romans 4; Lent 2A) part two

For my take on a key theological issue in 5:12–21, see

Original Sin? or Innate Goodness? (Genesis 2, Romans 5; Lent 1A)

Not peace, but a sword (Matt 10; Pentecost 4A)

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.” (Matt 10:34–36).

Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, lover of all, and patron of the close-knit nuclear family … where are you? The words of Jesus we are given by the lectionary for this coming Sunday (Matt 10:24–39) seem to come from a very different person from the stereotypical “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world”. Who exactl y is this Jesus?

“Go nowhere among the Gentiles” (10:5), he has told his disciples, establishing what appears to be a very exclusivist, racially-driven undertaking. “Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff” (10:9–10), on what will undoubtedly be an incredibly ascetic experience for the disciples. “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town” (10:14), says Jesus, anticipating a divisive and difficult time for his followers.

And then, “I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves” (10:16), for “they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues” (10:17). Yes, this sure to be an experience that the disciples will not forget—for all the wrong reasons! “You will be hated by all because of my name” (10:22) is hardly an enticing invitation to take part in this mission; indeed, the advice, “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (10:28) bodes no good; are there not only persecutions, but also deaths, on the horizon?

What is going on? How did Jesus manage to entice a group of men and women to take part in this enterprise? And why was he so clear and direct about all the dangers that lay ahead of them?

***

As I noted in last week’s blog on Matthew 10, we know that Judaism was in a state of flux after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Evidence indicates that there were a number of sectarian groups contesting with each other for recognition and influence. During this period, the Pharisees were becoming increasingly important as an alternative to the Temple cult, and emerging as the dominant Jewish religious movement. Their power base was moved from Jerusalem and spread throughout the area.

It has been claimed that a Jewish Council was formed in Jamnia, a city on the coast of Judea. This is taken to demonstrate that the Pharisees had laid claim to be the dominant group amongst the Jews; it might also indicate that it was possible to legislate for the formal separation of some communities (such as the Matthean one).

Note: this story is now regarded as more likely that this story of Jamnia was a ‘foundation myth’, developed in later years, with the aim of showing that there was unity in formative Judaism from the earliest times.

The area of Galilee is extremely important in Matthew’s Gospel (2:22; 3:13; 4:12–25; 17:22; 19:1; 21:11; 26:32; 28:7). As the Galilean Pharisees figure prominently in the narrative of Matthew’s Gospel, it seems reasonable to suppose there was a strong Pharisaic presence in Galilee, and that this group provided the main opponents for the community of Matthew.

The power of the Pharisees was rising, and with the destruction of the Temple, it was common to find new ways of interpreting how Judaism should exist. From this time on, Pharisees evolved into the “Rabbis”, and they developed the kind of Judaism that became dominant through to the present time.

Nevertheless, many Jews, particularly in the Diaspora, were not yet “Pharisaic”—they did not see their faith in the same way as the Pharisees. There were many disputes amongst Jewish communities as to the correct way of seeing things, and some of these disputes were quite bitter. Many groups claimed to be the ‘true Israel’ as distinct from other groups, who were false leaders and teachers, and who failed to follow the Law correctly.

The Law became the most accessible means of revealing God’s will for Israel after the destruction of the Temple, and most of these groups focused on what they believed to be the true interpretation and application of it.

Matthew’s Gospel reflects one such debate; scholars suggest that it should be read alongside of other literature from after the time of the destruction of the Temple—books such as 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and the Psalms of Solomon. This literature is trying to envisage what Judaism should be like in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple.

Thus, although Matthew’s Gospel has been seen to have played an important role in the formation of early Christian theology, a more natural interpretation is to locate this Gospel within the post-70 Jewish debates about the survival of Judaism without the Temple. The polemic in Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees, and the warnings that are uttered to Israel, show that Matthew still had hope that his ideas would become normative for all Jewish people.

I think it likely that Matthew’s Gospel was created to insist on the centrality and priority of the teachings of Jesus, the Torah-observant Jew, whom God had chosen as the anointed one; it was his teaching, not that of the local synagogue leaders, which was to be given priority.

*****

In such a context, the opposition envisaged by Jesus and the warnings that he gives in this polemical speech to his earliest followers, starts to make sense. Matthew sets out the teachings of Jesus concerning discipleship within the context of an apocalyptic view of reality. This view looks at the present time in relation to the ultimate end of time, and calls for a way of living that will ultimately show responsibility for decisions made.

What ultimate end does Matthew have in view? Each Gospel writer tends to emphasis something slightly different. In Mark, the focus is on the resurrection of Jesus (Mark 14:28; 16:7). In Luke-Acts, carrying the good news throughout the Roman Empire fulfils the story (Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8). In John, it is eternal life which is emphasised (John 20:31).

Matthew’s Jesus has in mind the coming eschatological deliverance, a deliverance which is expected imminently and that will vindicate the community as faithful and righteous to the will of God. So he tells his followers that “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (10:23). The mission that his followers undertake amongst Jews only is urgent; the end of time is coming soon, and they will not have shared “the good news [that] the kingdom of heaven has come near” (10:7) before “the Son of Man appears in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory” (24:30).

In this way, Matthew is typical of one type of Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple; that of apocalyptic hope. Most of the post-70 sectarian groups express hope that God will remember his covenant with them, the faithful few of Israel, and save them; for example, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra write that God will provide consolation for their suffering and vindicate them, whilst also punishing their enemies on the Day of Judgement (2 Baruch 6:21; 82:1–2; 4 Ezra 8:51–59; 12:34).

In these sectarian documents, the kingdom of God is eschatological is nature; it has not yet arrived on earth, though signs telling of its coming can be detected. These communities also agree that much of Israel no longer truly follows the Law of God, and that the dominant Jewish leadership is unfaithful and wicked, and that they are the ones alone representing the true Israel. Therefore, entry to the kingdom is dependent upon faithfulness to the Law as interpreted by the community.

*****

Much of this sectarian understanding can also be found in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew redacts his sources and shapes his material so that this eschatological end is prominent—even in the mission discourse. The words of Jesus about persecutions (10:17–20) are very similar to words in the closing apocalyptic of Jesus (24:9); his words about divisions and hatred within the family (10:21–22 and 10:34-37) mirror the later declaration of betrayal and hatred (24:10).

The “false messiahs and false prophets” that are foreseen (10:24) evoke the false message of “those who will lead you astray” (24:4–5) whilst the words that the Spirit will speak through the disciples (10:19–20) provide the substance for the future “testimony to all the nations” concerning “the good news of the kingdom” (24:14). The instruction to flee in the face of persecution (10:23) foreshadows the apocalyptic command that “those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (24:16–18).

The urgency of the mission (9:37–38; 10:11–14) is because “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (10:23). And the note that the Son of Man is expected to come soon (10:23) presages the cataclysmic scene described in the closing speech of Jesus (24:29–31)—for “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (24:34). This later causes Jesus such frustration, when he berates his disciples, those of “little faith”, “you faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I be with you? how much longer must I put up with you?” (17:17).

The mission discourse (10:5–42) thus contains many of the key elements of the apocalyptic discourse (24:3–44): opposition, persecution, division, fear, assurance, and urgency. Jesus, in this Gospel, is particularly clear that there are two ages: the first is the current time for the evangelist, and the second is the age to come (Matt 12:32, from Mark 3:29). In this Gospel, the first indication that we have of the nearness of the second age is the announcement of John the Baptist, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (3:2).

This succinct message has set the tone for the rest of the Gospel. Jesus repeats, word-for-word, John’s call for people to repent (4:17). He intensifies the need for faithful people to be obedient to God’s law (5:17–20) and demonstrate an intensified righteous-justice (5:21–48), as the end-time of God’s judgement is fast approaching. This is the centrepiece of the message that the disciples are to proclaim, when sent out on mission: “as you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons” (10:7–8).

In Matthew’s understanding, the kingdom is imminent, but not yet arrived; however, signs of its imminence break in to the present times to demonstrate its nearness. The ministry of Jesus is set at the end of the first age; the second age will commence very shortly with the triumphant return of Jesus after his death, within the lifetime of his disciples (10:23; 16:28; 24:34).

Matthew does not reflect the notion that the kingdom has already arrived on earth, even though it can be seen in Jesus (12:28), and in the continuation of his ministry by his followers after his death. Jesus and the disciples both preach that the kingdom of heaven is near, or at hand (4:17; 7:21–22; 9:35; 10:7), but it has not yet established itself on earth.

A number of the parables of Jesus address the nature of this kingdom. The kingdom of heaven will be established “at the end of the age”, when the final judgement of righteous and unrighteous will take place (13:39–40, 49; 24:3). Before the coming of the Son of Man, it remains hidden and mysterious (13:31–33, 44–45), too small to be observed, but the day is coming when it will grow and become the “greatest of all things”, and the righteousness of God will triumph.

And entry into this kingdom—or not—will be determined by a person’s readiness (24:45–51; 25:1–11) and by an assessment of the way they lived their life (25:31–46). So Jesus gives his followers this assurance: “whoever welcomes a prophet … and whoever welcomes a righteous person … and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward” (10:41–42).

He also issues this severe warning: “whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.” (10:37–39).

*****

Matthew takes source material about the mission of the disciples (Mark 6:7–13), modifies, intensifies, expands, and reshapes it, in the light of the context in which he is writing the Gospel. The events of the 50s and 60s, the onset of the war with the Romans in 66, and perhaps even the destruction of the Temple in 70CE, have all guided the way that the author of Matthew’s Gospel retells the instructions that Jesus gave to his first disciples, decades earlier.

Just as he and his community are experiencing intense difficulties and confronting entrenched conflict, so the Jesus of earlier times had foreseen such a situation, and had sent his followers out forewarned, and thus forearmed. What was taking place in the early 70s (or perhaps even in the late 60s) amongst a group of Torah-abiding, Messiah-following Jews, was an outworking of what Jesus is presented as speaking to his disciples.

In other words, the mission discourse of Matt 10:1–11:1 reveals much about the strife and contention amongst Jews in the local area where Matthew’s community was located, and the intensified expectation that the end was coming soon, that they felt. It was a word for his time; placed on the lips of Jesus, but speaking with clarity and insight into the lived experience of the people of Matthew’s community. For them, this was what obedience to the Gospel and following the way of Messiah Jesus, their Rabbi, entailed.

This blog draws on material in MESSIAH, MOUNTAINS, AND MISSION: an exploration of the Gospel for Year A, by Elizabeth Raine and John Squires (self-published 2012)

See also

“Go nowhere among the Gentiles” (Matt 10:5): the mission of Jesus in the book of origins (Pentecost 3A)

The Mooloolaba Eight: sexuality, ethics, and church practice

Regular readers of my blog will know that, from time to time, I leave my natural environment of detailed exegetical exploration of biblical texts, and move into matters of church practice or issues of key concern in the wider society—even, at times, into politics.

This blog is such a venture, written in response to the news that on 17 June 2023, eight people who had been ordained as Uniting Church ministers and who for years have exercised ministry in Uniting Churches, have now joined the Diocese of Southern Cross Inc. (I will refer to this as the DSC in what follows.) What follows is entirely my own point of view, and I do not claim to be speaking for any part of then Uniting Church in this blog.

That “Diocese”—to be precise, it is an incorporated company that has taken an ecclesiastically-sounding title—is related to GAFCON, the breakaway group of Anglicans who have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the worldwide Anglican Communion, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The critical issue for GAFCON (indeed, the only issue, it seems) is homosexuality. GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future Conference) has been vehement in its criticism of the Anglican Church as a collection of issues in this area have been considered. Some GAFCON leaders from African countries have indeed supported the introduction of the death penalty in that country in some instances of homosexual practice.

The eight “former Uniting Church ministers” who have joined the DSC are all firmly convinced that the practice of homosexual sex is abhorrent, that gay people (broadly understood) are perpetual sinners, and that the church needs to take a strong stand, condemning same-gender relationships and writing that point of view into the doctrine and practices of the church. (None of them, I should hasten to add, have called for the death penalty to be imposed.)

The Uniting Church has consistently refused to do as they have wished in relation to homosexuality; their most recent spectacular failure was the efforts to derail the national Assembly meeting in Melbourne in 2018. This was the meeting where, despite the blocking tactics and argumentative strategy of members of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations—what I have described as their “aggressive apologetic antagonism”—the UCA Assembly agreed that same gender couples could be married under the auspices of the Uniting Church.

These eight people left the Uniting Church to join the DSC in a ceremony held at Mooloolaba, on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, that “recognised” them as Pastors in the DSC. What precise status that gives them is unclear; they cannot be seen as ordained Anglican ministers, since Anglican ordination require connection to the episcopal line of tradition, which Uniting Church ordinations do not have, at least in their eyes.

The Facebook page for the Diocese of Southern Cross proclaims that Faith Church Sunshine Coast and Hedley Fihaki were welcomed to the Diocese of the Southern Cross. Hedley Fihaki, of course, is the former chairperson of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations in the Uniting Church, which recently caved in on itself and closed. The ACC is no more. Hedley and his companions are seeking a new base.

Glenn Davies and Hedley Fihaki

So the Mooloolaba Eight left the Uniting Church. It is rather ironic that their service of “recognition” was presided over by Glenn Davies, the former Archbishop of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. Whilst he was still Archbishop in Sydney, he had invited members of the Anglican Church who disagreed with Sydney Diocese policy about sexuality, to “please leave”. The Mooloolaba Eight left their church to join a breakaway group headed by the person who said “please leave”. How ironic!

The Facebook post continues: “As well as being commissioned as pastor of Faith Church, Hedley was formally recognised by Bishop Glenn Davies as a presbyter in the diocese along with seven other former Uniting Church ministers who have chosen to join us in the Diocese of the Southern Cross. Welcome to Philip Anderson, David Graham, Anne Hibbard, Roger Hibbard, Raymond McIlwraith, Lulu Senituli, and Harold Strong.”

I have to confess that I know and have had interactions with six of the eight people identified in this post—some as members of the same council of the church, some through online conversations, some as colleagues in ministry in placements in the same synod as me, and one who I taught whilst they were in theological college. (A wise colleague has helpfully reminded me that, in line with Ezekiel 18, the sins of the student should not be attributed to or visited on the teacher!)

Some of those who were “recognised” this past weekend have been aggressive in their pursuit of their homophobic agenda, for years, whilst in the Uniting Church. This has been a very bad thing for the Uniting Church, because much energy and effort has been diverted from the core matters of importance in the church, to attempt to placate and include those who prosecuted this strident line. Now that they have moved on, the UCA can hopefully return to key matters of mission and ministry unhindered by such regressive views and the associated intrusive aggressive tactics.

There are interesting questions of church order now to be explored. Presumably, the eight people have or will resigned from their status as ordained ministers within the Uniting Church. My understanding is that two of them have already been engaged in processes within the Uniting Church over the past year, in this regard. But the move to the DSC must surely mark the time when they each formally resign from the Uniting Church.

The DSC itself is a curious beast. There is debate amongst Anglicans as to whether this is “a real diocese” or not. I have seen a direct statement that “this is a real Anglican diocese”, but also a similarly definitive claim that “this is not an entity in fellowship with the Anglican Church in Australia”, and so not actually an Anglican diocese. That’s all a matter for Anglican polity nerds, though.

What interests me more is how the eight who were “formally recognised as presbyters” will portray themselves and act in ministry. Will they simply continue as if they remain ordained? If the DSC is acting like an Anglican entity, their ordination as Uniting Church ministers will not be recognised—no bishop, in the line of apostolic succession, laid hands on them at their ordination, and so they technically are not to be regarded as ordained. That’s how I understand it, from my non-Anglican standpoint; but it will be interesting to see what eventuates.

The other element is the curious fact, commented on by some of my Facebook friends, that the person who “recognised” the eight people at Mooloolaba on 17 June was Glenn Davies, who was previously Archbishop of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. This diocese has fought long and hard, over many years, to oppose the ordination of women.

Yet the former Archbishop of Sydney, who so strenuously opposed the ordination of women in that role, has seemingly validated the ordained ministry of the one woman in the Mooloolaba Eight. It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.

Apparently the DSC, being affiliated with the schismatic GAFCON within the Anglican Church, is nevertheless open to women ministers. Indeed, the first GAFCON-affiliated congregation in Western Australia, New Beginnings Church in Mandurah, Western Australia, has an ordained female minister, the Rev. Linley MatthewsWant, who is an Anglican minister.

Glenn Davies with Linley MatthewsWant in Mandurah, WA

So the irony is that the former leader of the aggressively anti-women’s ordination push is now the leader of an organisation with ordained female in ministry. Isn’t that a telling revelation as to the ethics of Glenn Davies? Either he really believes in the ordination of women, but put this to one side while he was in the Sydney Diocese; or else he has shelved the firm commitment that he had in the past for entirely pragmatic reasons in the present. Neither option indicates a good grasp of ethical responsibility, in my view.

So what next for the Mooloolaba Eight? We will just have to see where this leads next …

**********

On the end of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations, see

The end of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations and, hopefully, their aggressive apologetic antagonism

My previous posts on the various evangelical/fundamentalist groups in the UCA are at

Ramping up the rhetoric, generating guilt and provoking panic: the failed strategy of conservatives in the UCA (part I)
Ramping up the rhetoric, generating guilt and provoking panic: the failed strategy of conservatives in the UCA (part II)
Ramping up the rhetoric, generating guilt and provoking panic: the failed strategy of conservatives in the UCA (part III)

For the various affirmations that the Uniting Church Assembly has made that led the church to agree to the marriage of people of the same gender, see

Seven Affirmations

Psalm 86: a primer of prayer (Pentecost 4A) part II

Psalm 86 is offered by the lectionary for this coming Sunday, the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost. This psalm comprises a string of prayers, offering petition, thanksgiving, adoration, and intercession, filled with phrases that occur in other psalms and prayers in Hebrew Scripture. Although some commentators have criticised it for being unoriginal, it serves an important purpose, collating many phrases that can serve well those who pray.

In an earlier blog, I considered the structure of this psalm, and explored three types of prayers that are to be found in it: thanksgiving, adoration, and intercession. See

Psalm 86: a primer of prayer (Pentecost 4A) part I

In this blog, I turn my attention to the petitions that are included in this psalm. The opening section (verses 1–7) includes a substantial collection of petitions to be prayed in times of trouble. Along with the further petitions in verse 11 and verses 16–17, there are a total of eleven petitions to God in this psalm. Let’s consider each of them in turn.

“Incline your ear, O Lord” (v.1) is a request made in other psalms (Ps 17:6; 31:2; 71:2; 88:2; 102:2); in one psalm, there is a confidence that God “will hear the desire of the meek … will strengthen their heart … will incline your ear to do justice” (10:17–18). Likewise, a number of psalms include the request for God to “answer me” (v.1; see Ps 4:1; 13:3; 27:7; 55:2; 69:13, 16, 17; 102:2; 108:6; 119:145; 143:1, 7). In one psalm the author affirms that “I call upon you, for you will answer me, O God” (Ps 17:6); likewise, in Ps 86, the psalmist affirms with confidence that “in the day of my trouble I call on you, for you will answer me” (v.7).

In the same verse, the psalmist describes themselves: “I am poor and needy” (v.1)—a self-description also offered at Ps 40:17; 70:5; and 109:22. The phrase is placed in parallel with “the downtrodden” at Ps 74:21. That God stands with the poor and needy is asserted regularly in the psalms; “because the poor are despoiled, because the needy groan, I will now rise up, says the Lord; I will place them in the safety for which they long” (Ps 12:5).

So God “raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap” (Ps 113:7); God “maintains the cause of the needy and executes justice for the poor” (Ps 140:12). “As for me, I am poor and needy, but the Lord takes thought for me; you are my help and my deliverer, O God” (Ps 40:17; also 70:5). And the psalmist pleads that the king will “judge your people with righteousness and your poor with justice … defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy” (Ps 72:2, 4)

“Preserve my life” is the next petition (v.2), echoing the same prayer found at Ps 64:1; 79:11; 119:49, 159; 143:11; a prayer made on the basis that God is “a hiding place for me [for] you preserve me from trouble” (Ps 32:7), for “though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve me against the wrath of my enemies” (Ps 138:7).

The psalmist undergirds this request to God with the declaration, “I am devoted to you” (v.2), a phrase that might also be translated as “I am a godly person” or “I am a faithful person”. The Hebrew word used here, hasid, is the basis for the contemporary group of ultra-conservative Orthodox Jews known as Hasidic Jews. Many psalms uses this word as a description for those in Israel who were godly people (Ps 12:1; 52:1) or faithful people (Ps 4:3; 16:10; 30:4; 32:6; 37:28; 50:5; 52:9; 79:2; 85:8; 89:19; 97:10; 116:15; 132:9, 16; 145:10). The NRSV also translates this word as blameless (Ps 18:25) and as saints (Ps 31:23).

*****

The plea of the psalmist for God to “save” them (v.2) is another persistent refrain throughout the psalms—both “save me” (Ps 6:4; 7:1; 22:21; 31:2, 16; 44:6; 54:1; 57:3; 59:2; 69:1; 71:2, 3; 109:26, 116:4; 119:94, 146; 142:6; 143:9) and “save us” (Ps 28:9; 31:2; 80:2; 106:47; 118:25). This is a request grounded in the assurance that “God is my shield, who saves the upright in heart” (Ps 7:10); “the Lord is near to the brokenhearted, and saves the crushed in spirit” (Ps 34:18); God “fulfils the desire of all who fear him; he also hears their cry, and saves them” (Ps 145:19). Of course , God as Saviour is an important Hebraic way of understanding the divine, that then has implications and influence as the New Testament documents are written, centuries later.

The self-description of the psalmist in this verse, as “your servant who trusts in you” (v.2), is a description found also in verses 4 and 16. The writer presents themselves as God’s servant in a number of other psalms (Ps 19:11, 13; 27:9; 31:16; 35:27; 69:17; 109:28; 116:16; 143:2, 12) as well as twelve times in Psalm 119 (vv.17, 23, 38, 49, 65, 76, 84, 124, 125, 135, 140, 176).

The attitude of trust in God (v.2) is a stance which is shared with other psalms. “Those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you”, the psalmist sings (Ps 9:10). “O my God, in you I trust; do not let me be put to shame; do not let my enemies exult over me” (Ps 25:2), they sing, affirming that “steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord” (Ps 32:10), “happy are those who make the Lord their trust” (Ps 40:4), and “in God I trust; I am not afraid” (Ps 56:4; and similar, 55:23).

“Be gracious to me, O Lord” (v.3) is yet another petition that is typical of the psalms. The psalmist regularly implores God, “be gracious to me, for I am in distress” (Ps 31:9; similarly, 6:2; 9:13; 56:1), or “be gracious to me, and hear my prayer” (Ps 4:1), or “be gracious to me and answer me” (Ps 27:7), or simply, “be gracious to me” (Ps 25:16; 26:11; 30:10; 41:4).

In one song, the psalmist muses, “has God forgotten to be gracious?” (Ps 77:9), but in typical style, this cry of lament transforms into words of praise, for “you are the God who works wonders … with your strong arm you redeemed your people” (Ps 77:11–20). God showing grace towards God’s faithful people is indeed “your custom toward those who love your name” (Ps 119:132).

The cry for God to be gracious is a constant and insistent plea, “for to you do I cry all day long” (v.3). The cry of the psalmist is expressed often (Ps 3:4; 5:2; 17:1; 18:6; 27:7; 28:2; 39:12; 57:2; 61:1; 77:1; 88:1–2; 102:1; 119:146–147, 169; 120:1; 142:1, 5–6). Even though the psalmist cries to God “with my whole heart” (Ps 119:145), there are times when this cry feels futile; “I cry by day, but you do not answer me, and by night, but find no rest” (Ps 22:2), and “O Lord, I cry out to you; in the morning my prayer comes to you; why do you cast me off? why do you hide your face from me?” (Ps 88:13–14).

Yet the psalmist is persistent, crying “all day long” (v.3); this mirrors the oppression and distress experienced by the psalmists “all day long”. Various psalms reflect “sorrow in my heart all day long” (Ps 13:2), “groaning all day long” (Ps 32:3), “all day long I go around mourning” (Ps 38:6), “all day long I have been plagued” (Ps 73:14). “All day long my foes oppress me” (Ps 56:1), laments the psalmist, “all day long my enemies taunt me” (Ps 102:8), even bemoaning that “we are being killed all day long” (Ps 44:22). Extended personal distress seems to mark a number of psalms.

However, in other psalms, we have affirmations that “the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are open to their cry” (Ps 34:15); “when the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears” (Ps 34:17); “I waited patiently for the Lord; he inclined to me and heard my cry” (Ps 40:1); “he regarded their distress when he heard their cry” (Ps 106:44). As the psalmist cries “out of the depths”, so they are assured that “with the Lord there is steadfast love, and with him there is great power to redeem” (Ps 130:1–8).

The same dynamic, of calling out to God and anticipating an answer, is sung in the petition in v.6, “give ear, O Lord, to my prayer”. This is found in ten other psalms (Ps 5:1; 17:1; 39:12; 54:2; 55:1; 80:1; 84:8; 140:6; 141:1; 143:1), and the parallel request, “listen to my cry of supplication” (v.6) is also offered in two other psalms (Ps 5:2; 61:1).

The psalmist’s confidence that, “on the day of my trouble I call on you, for you will answer me” (v.7), is also reflected at Ps 17:6. This confidence is undergirded by the words spoken by God to those who trust in God: “those who love me, I will deliver; I will protect those who know my name; when they call to me, I will answer them” (Ps 91:14–15).

Verse 11 moves from the offering of prayers and anticipation of receiving answers, to the request to “teach me your way, O Lord, that I may walk in your truth”. The language here reflects another common element in the relationship between the psalmist and the divine, as a student learning from a teacher.

“Teach me” (v.11) is what the psalmist asks for, seeking to be taught “your ways … your paths … your truth” (Ps 25:4–5), “your way” (27:11; 143:8), “your will” (Ps 143:10), “the fear of the Lord” (Ps 34:11), and “wisdom in my secret heart” (Ps 51:6). Throughout the longest psalm of all, there are regular petitions for the Lord to teach “your statutes” (Ps 119:12, 26, 33, 64, 68, 124, 171) as well as “good judgement and knowledge” (Ps 119:66). The psalmists appear to be keen students, thirsting for knowledge.

The next request is for God to “give me an undivided heart” (v.11)—an unusual request, not found in any other psalm, and using a Hebrew word that appears in only two other places in Hebrew Scripture (Gen 49:6; Isa 14:20). The purpose of this request, “to revere your name” (v.11), draws on a very common Hebrew word, found often in the formulaic “do not be afraid” (Gen 15:1;21:17;26:24; 35:17;46:3; Exod 14:13; 20:20; etc.; and on into New Testament texts). This is no fear in the sense of negative terror, for the psalmist clearly draws on the positive sense of the verb, yare’, to indicate a reverence towards God.

*****

In the final set of verses, there are three further petitions worthy of note. “Turn to me and be gracious to me” (v.16) is a petition repeated exactly (Ps 25:16; 119:132) and in shortened form, “turn to me” (Ps 69:16; 119:79). “Give your strength to your servant” (v.16) recalls the closing verse of a powerful nature psalm, “may the Lord give strength to his people! may the Lord bless his people with peace!” (Ps 29:11). The latter part of verse 16, “save the child of your serving girl”, echoes the petition of verse 2, “save your servant who trusts in you”, which we have dealt with above.

Finally, “show me a sign of your favour” (v.17) does not reflect any other psalm, but does evoke the petition of Gideon to the Lord, “now I have found favour with you, then show me a sign that it is you who speak with me” (Judg 6:17).

The purpose of this sign which is sought by the psalmist, “so that those who hate me may see it and be put to shame” (v.17), does however reflect a common request across a number of psalms, pleading for enemies to be “put to shame” (Ps 6:10; 31:17; 35:4, 26; 40:14; 50:5: 57:3; 70:2; 71:13, 24; 83:17; 97:7;109:28; 119:78; 129:5). The other side of this petition is the request, “do not let me be put to shame” (Ps 25:2, 20; 31:1, 17; 71:1; 119:31, 116).

*****

And so we can see that throughout this psalm, in offering petition, thanksgiving, adoration, and intercession, the psalmist has made use of many phrases that occur in other psalms and prayers in Hebrew Scripture. This psalm, a primer for prayer, serves an important purpose, as it draws together many phrases that can serve well those who pray.

Psalm 86: a primer of prayer (Pentecost 4A) part I

Christians are used to praying The Lord’s Prayer on a regular basis, in obedience to the instructions of Jesus recorded in two Gospels: “when you pray, say …” (Luke 11:2; Matt 6:9). This prayer can be considered a succinct primer for prayer, since it contains the key elements of praying.

After an opening adoration of God (“our Father in heaven, holy is your name”), there follows prayers for the world (“your kingdom come, your will be done”), petitions for ourselves (“give us bread for the day, forgive us our sins, do not bring us to the time of trial”), and intercessions for others (“as we forgive those who sin against us”). In the later version of the prayer, a closing benediction is included (“yours is the kingdom, the power, the glory”), ending, of course, with “Amen”. The pattern is clear and concise. See

Our Father in heaven: a pattern for prayer (Luke 11, Matt 6) part I

and

On earth, as in heaven: the key to The Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11; Pentecost 7C)

and

Sins or trespasses? Trial or temptation? Thine or yours? The prayer that Jesus taught (Luke 11; Pentecost 8C)

There is a similar primer for prayer in Hebrew Scriptures, and it is offered by the lectionary for this coming Sunday, the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost. Psalm 86 comprises a string of prayers, offering petition, thanksgiving, adoration, and intercession, filled with phrases that occur in other psalms and prayers in Hebrew Scripture. Although some commentators have criticised it for being unoriginal, it serves an important purpose, collating many phrases that can serve well those who pray.

(And a similar criticism of unoriginality can be levelled against The Lord’s Prayer; every phrase in that prayer reflects ideas expressed already in Hebrew Scriptures. The originality of the prayer lies not in its content, but in the distinctive way that Jesus has drawn together each element into a cohesive unity.)

Psalm 86 is a prayer which is titled as “A psalm of David”, one of 72 psalms directly attributed to the poet king. Critical studies of the Psalms maintain a strong degree of scepticism regarding the attribution to David of those songs. As the psalm is a fine compilation of various psalmic phrases, however, we will maintain references to the author as “the psalmist”.

The psalm falls into four sections, each with its own style of praying. First (86:1–7), the psalmist cries out in great need, asking God to hear and act on his or her behalf. Then, in a traditional formulaic statement (86:8–10), the psalmist offers adoration of God as the only true God, the Lord of the nations. In the following verses (86:11–13), the psalmist asks God to teach them God’s way and to unite their heart to fear God’s name, so that they might glorify God’s name forever. Finally (86:14–17), in light of the enemies that are perceived, the psalmist again appeals to God’s mercy and grace to deliver them.

The opening section of the prayer (verses 1–7) thus includes a substantial collection of petitions to be prayed in times of trouble. Along with the further petitions in verse 11 and verses 16–17, there are a total of eleven petitions to God in this psalm. (We will explore these further in a subsequent blog post.)

Thanksgiving is the focus in verses 12–13, when the psalmist declares, “I will give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart, and I will glorify your name forever; for great is your steadfast love toward me; you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol”. Prayers giving thanks to God occur frequently in the book of Psalms (Ps 7:17; 9:1; 28:7; 30:12; 44:8; 54:6; 57:9; 75:1; 79:13; 92:1; 97:12; 100:4; 105:1; 106:1, 47; 107:1; 108:3; 109:30; 111:1; 118:1, 19, 28–29; 122:4; 136:1–3, 26; 138:1–2; 140:13; 142:7; 145:10; see also 1 Chron 29:13; 2 Chron 30:22; Neh 12:24).

Celebrations of being delivered from Sheol likewise occur in other psalms (Ps 30:3; 49:15; 71:20; and see a counterpoint at Hos 13:14). Glorifying the name of the Lord is also a common practice (Ps 22:23; 29:2; 66:2; 72:19; 96:8; 105:3; 115:1; 148:13; 1 Chron 16:8–10, 28–30, 35; Isa 24:15; and for a counterpoint, Mal 2:2). Each of these phrases connects in multiple ways with other parts of Hebrew Scripture.

Adoration is offered in verses 8 to 10 and again in verse 15 of Psalm 86. In the latter verse, the psalmist addresses God as “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness”—the same refrain found in many places in the Hebrew Scriptures (Exod 34:6; 2 Chron 30:8–9; Neh 9:17, 32; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps 86:15; 103:8, 11; 111:4; 145:8–9). In both thanksgiving and in adoration, then, the psalm echoes the prayers offered in other psalms as well as in prophetic works.

In the first expression of adoration, the psalmist draws a clear comparison between the Lord God and the many other gods: “there is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours” (v.8). This reflects early (pre-Exilic) understandings about the Lord God amongst the many gods, before the Exilic experience crystallised the move into monotheism, articulated especially by Second Isaiah, that “beside me there is no god” (Isa 45:5, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9), and in Deuteronomy, that “the Lord is God; there is no other besides him” (Deut 4:35, 39; 5:7; 6:14; 7:4; 8:19; 11:16, 28; 13:6–7, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:26; 30:17–20).

Could this be a clue that supports the claim in the title of this psalm, that it was written by David? The pre-monotheistic view of the Lord God amongst the gods is reflected in the ancestral narratives concerning Jacob (Gen 31:30–35; 35:1–4). Psalm 82 begins, “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement” (Ps 82:1); of these gods, he says “they have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk around in darkness” (Ps 82:5).

This criticism reflects the claim that while they wandered in the wilderness, the people “made [God] jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him; they sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared” (Deut 32:16–17).

This critical view of other gods is also reflected in the opening words of the Decalogue: “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:2–5).

In the song of celebration attributed to Moses after passing through the Sea of Reeds, the people rejoice, asking “who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in splendor, doing wonders?” (Exod 15:11). Later, Jethro the Midianite affirms, “I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, because he delivered the people from the Egyptians, when they dealt arrogantly with them” (Exod 18:11). The distinctiveness of the Lord God is known and celebrated in these ancient sagas. The psalm thus may well have origins in the time of David, long before later post-Exilic theological developments had occurred.

Intercession is the flavour of the prayers offered in verses 14 and 17. Although there is antagonism towards “the insolent … a band of ruffians” (v.14), nevertheless the psalmist hopes that “those who hate me may see [a sign of your favour] and be put to shame” (v.17). Prayers for enemies to be put to shame occur regularly in the psalms (Ps 6:10; 35:4, 26; 40:14; 57:3; 70:2; 71:13, 24; 83:17; 109:28; 119:78; 129:5) and the prophets look for this fate to meet those who are unfaithful (Isa 42:17; 44:9, 11; Jer 2:36; 17:13; 50:2; 51:47; Hos 10:6; Zech 10:3-5).

But praying for enemies to experience God’s grace, as in Ps 86:17, is rare. The psalmist prays for God’s favour to be shown to the faithful people of Israel (Ps 90:17; 106:4; 119:58) and the ancestral sagas record that God showed favour to Noah (Gen 6:8), Joseph (Gen 39:4), Moses (Exod 33:12-17), the people in the wilderness (Lev 26:9), Samuel (1 Sam 2:26), Manasseh (2 Chron 33:12-13), and the remnant who returned to the land (Ezra 9:8).

There is, nevertheless, no other prayer in Hebrew Scripture for God to show favour to enemies, apart from the final verse of Psalm 86. This distinctive prayer thus reaches out across the centuries to link with the teaching of Jesus, to “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27-28).

Picturing God as the one who “has helped me and comforted me” (v.17) does resonate strongly, however, with other scriptural passages. God comforts—most famously in Psalm 23, where the psalmist prays, “your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Ps 23:4), but also in the longest psalm of all, where we hear the plea, “let your steadfast love become my comfort according to your promise to your servant” (Ps 119:76), as well as the affirmation, “when I think of your ordinances from of old, I take comfort, O Lord” (Ps 119:52).

So, in a famous oracle, the prophet Jeremiah promises Israel that God says, “I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow” (Jer 31:13), and another prophet in exile sings, “the Lord will comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places” (Isa 51:3). Years later, a post-exilic prophet affirms that God declares, “as a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem” (Isa 66:13), and another, Zechariah, conveys the message that “cities shall again overflow with prosperity; the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem” (Zech 1:17).

Not only will God comfort; God is also the one who helps (Ps 86:17). “The Lord helps [the righteous] and rescues them; he rescues them from the wicked, and saves them, because they take refuge in him”, says the psalmist (Ps 37:40). “It is the Lord God who helps me”, says Isaiah (Isa 50:7, 9). So God is “helper of the orphan” (Ps 10:14), “the God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, saviour of those without hope” (Judith 9:11). “Surely, God is my helper”, sings the psalmist (Ps 54:4), and so they pray, “O Lord, be my helper” (Ps 30:10).

How God is understood in this psalm, and the way that God relates to the people who are in covenant with God, and indeed with all people of the world, is entirely consistent with these elements as expressed elsewhere in scripture.

(more in the next blog …)

Psalm 86: a primer of prayer (Pentecost 4A) part II

The Uniting Church Statement to the Nation (1977)

A sermon preached by the Rev. Elizabeth Raine in Sunday worship of the Tuggeranong Uniting Church on Sunday 18 June, the Sunday before the 46th Anniversary of the UCA (22 June). (Passages in italics are taken from the 1977 Statement to the Nation issued by the First Assembly.)

In a few days time it will be the 46th birthday of the Uniting Church in Australia. At the time, it was certainly a risky and brave adventure, combining three denominations to make one uniquely Australian church.

It seemed to me that the journey of the Uniting church reflected our readings this week – like Abraham, this church stepped out in faith on a journey where a lot was unknown but also where faith in God committed people to the journey. Like the disciples in Matthew, this church sought to go into the communities surrounding them with the good news to make the world a better place.

At the time of the UCA inauguration, a statement was issued to all of the Australian nation, unsurprisingly called the Statement to the Nation. How many of you know it exists? Have read it? Know what’s in it?

After 46 years, sometimes we need to be reminded of the vision of the Uniting Church in Australia, and to recognise that witnessing to this vision is still vital and attainable. This vision called the church to act with love, live with hope, witness in faith, and work for justice.

Today as we celebrate the UCA’s birthday, we are going to read this statement as I think it is one of the greatest and most enlightened documents ever produced by a church.

People of the Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian Churches have united. A new church has been born. We, who are members of the first Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia address the people of Australia in this historic moment. The path to unity has been long and at times difficult, but we believe this unity is a sign of the reconciliation we seek for the whole human race.

We acknowledge with gratitude that the churches from which we have come have contributed in various ways to the life and development of this nation. A Christian responsibility to society has always been regarded as fundamental to the mission of the Church. In the Uniting Church our response to the Christian gospel will continue to involve us in social and national affairs.

We are conscious of our responsibilities within and beyond this country. We particularly acknowledge our responsibilities as one branch of the Christian church within the region of South-East Asia and the Pacific. In these contexts we make certain affirmations at the time of our inauguration.

We affirm our eagerness to uphold basic Christian values and principles, such as the importance of every human being, the need for integrity in public life, the proclamation of truth and justice, the rights for each citizen to participate in decision-making in the community, religious liberty and personal dignity, and a concern for the welfare of the whole human race.

Assembly General Secretary, Colleen Geyer (bottom right),
along with Past President Dr Deidre Palmer (top left),
President (2022–2024) the Rev. Sharon Hollis (top right),
and President-Elect the Rev. Charissa Suli (bottom left)

Our Assembly General Secretary, Collen Geyer, has stated that every time [she] read[s] these words, she “feel[s] proud that, as a church, we had the guts to say these things, were courageous enough to set the bar high, and wanted there to be no doubt about what Australia could expect of us. Read these words and you will know how we’re intending to be true to who we are. Our unity, which is a sign of the reconciliation we seek for the whole human race, will look like this.”

What a wonderful aim for a church, to be an entity that embodies basic Christian values and principles, the importance of every human being, integrity in public life, truth and justice, democracy for all, religious freedom and personal dignity, and a concern for the welfare of the whole human race. Have we lived up to this? What do we need to do to make sure we do?

Did we realise as a church how extraordinary these words were? Did we understand what we were saying? These words tell of the great courage it took to make this announcement and embark on this journey of faith and justice. And since that time, we have seen that courage played out in the 46 years since Union as the Uniting church continues to stand with the voiceless, the marginalised and the poor, and continue to be activists for climate change reform. The Statement to the Nation commits us to acting in ways that are often considered political.

An Economy for Life is a later statement by the UCA Assembly which develops key themes that were articulated in the Statement to the Nation

We can see that such activities are built into the DNA in this church, yet sometimes we hesitate in implementing them. We lack the confidence in ourhomegrown models of mission and in ourselves. We can baulk at stepping out on new journeys. We have more trouble engaging around faith with our communities in an increasingly secular world. We shy away from being ‘political’ forgetting that Jesus also stood with the voiceless, the marginalised and the poor and was incredibly political.

We will challenge values which emphasise acquisitiveness and greed in disregard of the needs of others and which encourage a higher standard of living for the privileged in the face of the daily widening gap between the rich and poor.

In many churches, Western culture has created a culture of consumerism that permeates our congregations. Faith dwindles to “what’s in it for me” rather than homothumadon, discerning the common good. This leads to a reduced willingness to engage beyond the immediate and ourselves and look at ways in which various parts of the church can partner with others around us or how we can become the church of the future, a church still relevant, vital and life-giving not only to ourselves, but to the communities around us.

We are concerned with the basic human rights of future generations and will urge the wise use of energy, the protection of the environment and the replenishment of the earth’s resources for their use and enjoyment.

This small but direct statement let Australia know that as a church we weren’t just focused on the here and now but that we aim to be a future-focused church. We don’t want just to make a difference for the generations now, but we want to implement actions now that are “concerned with the basic human rights of future generations”. God’s love and commitment to humanity is not limited by time, space or matter and nor should ours be.

Renewal of the Whole Creation is a later statement by the UCA Assembly
which develops the brief sentence about the environment
that is found in the Statement to the Nation

This whole statement calls us to look now to identify injustices and at how we can influence change for the better and have improved outcomes for the future. It also acknowledges the impact of our actions for the future, particularly on our environment, God’s good creation that we are meant to be stewards of. Climate Change is a looming threat to most life on the planet, loss of biodiversity and loss of species are accelerating. This statement calls us into action now to prevent what may well be a very bleak future.

Finally we affirm that the first allegiance of Christians is God, under whose judgment the policies and actions of all nations must pass. We realise that sometimes this allegiance may bring us into conflict with the rulers of our day.

But our Uniting Church, as an institution within the nation, must constantly stress the universal values which must find expression in national policies if humanity is to survive.

We are clear about who we belong to – “the first allegiance of Christians is God”. As the Uniting Church, this is our foundation. It defines who we are and why we speak and act the way we do. Because of this belonging, we acknowledge that this may mean we could come into “conflict with the rulers of our day”, not because we want it, but because we will be speaking out for “the universal values which must find expression in national policies if humanity is to survive.” This isn’t a statement that holds back, and we should be proud of it as it leads us to live in the way of Jesus.

We pledge ourselves to hope and work for a nation whose goals are not guided by self-interest alone, but by concern for the welfare of all persons everywhere — the family of the One God — the God made known in Jesus of Nazareth the One who gave His life for others. In the spirit of His self-giving love we seek to go forward.

We pledge ourselves to hope … Can you think of anything better to pledge yourself to? Because of this hope, we pledge ourselves to work for our nation – a strong commitment which calls us to action. Our work however, is for a nation “whose goals are not guided by self-interest alone”. Everything that has come prior to this in the statement has been about being God’s church for others. Here, “all persons everywhere” are identified as “the family of the One God, through Jesus who “gave His life for others”. In this statement, we are called to be part of the work of God’s church in Australia.

In 2021, the National Assembly of the UCA issued
Our Vision for a Just Australia, which develops and applies
many of the core commitments made in the Statement to the Nation

Today, how can we be more purposeful and intentional about how we achieve this vision? This is a question to ponder. We could start by reclaiming this statement, andbeing deliberate in our efforts to live into it.

As the Uniting Church, we can’t make these commitments and then be silent. Our voice has had to be loud and strong at points of justice, fairness and what is best for the common good. At times our voice has had to be a lone voice, a voice that isn’t popular, even amongst our own members and among other Christians.

I suggest this should remind you of someone, who also wasn’t popular within his own religion and who voice often howled across the wilderness of the white noise of religious self-interest and disregard for how others were treated, and championed the notion that the future kingdom embodied a place of justice and equity for all.

The Statement to the Nation draws us back to our foundations. It reminds us that like Abraham and the disciples, we too are sent by God in the now to prepare the futurefor all. To help us in this quest, I am closing with a prayer by the Rev. Dorothy McRae-McMahon.

Gracious God,
we believe in the wonder of life in you.
In every moment, we know that
you call us on towards creativity and hope,
never giving up on us, your church.

Christ Jesus, we celebrate
that you have journeyed with us
over these last 46 years together,
never leaving us alone in our humanness
and inviting us towards
fullness of life together.

Holy Spirit of Wisdom,
we believe that you will be discovered
in unexpected places around us,
your shining life emerging before us
and inspiring us to believe
that we can share in your power
to change the world
towards your goodness and grace.
This we believe, O God. Amen.


(Source: Dorothy McRae-McMahon, slightly adapted from a prayer for the WCC 70th anniversary)

 

The Afterlives of Jesus: historical, interfaith, and cultural perspectives

Jesus has been important ever since his earthly life. Through his teachings, his death, and the experience of resurrection, his early followers recognised his significance. They held together after the crucial events in Jerusalem that brought the earthly life of Jesus to an end. In a sense, Jesus lived on through what they said and did in the ensuing decades … and centuries.

Jesus had a life after his (earthly) life … or, perhaps we might say, Jesus had an afterlife; although, to be more accurate, we might better say, Jesus had many afterlives. In the preaching, serving, writing, singing, drawing, painting, and witness of many later followers of Jesus, he lived on … in ways that each person represented, contextualising Jesus to their own situation, their own experience, their own cultural practices.

So over the centuries there has been Jewish Jesus, Black Jesus, Asian Jesus, African Jesus, White European Jesus, Jesus in song, Jesus in art, Jesus in orthodox doctrine, Jesus in “heretical” understandings, Jesus in Islam, Jesus in Buddhism, Jesus represented and communicated in a myriad of ways.

Australian Anglican priest and biblical scholar, Dr Greg Jenks, has been working for some time to collate a collection of writings which explores some of these “afterlives of Jesus”. The result is a set of three volumes, The Afterlives of Jesus, with contributions from a wide variety of people, providing fascinating insights into the way that Jesus has “lived on” through the centuries.

It is a collection of essays which explores the impact of Jesus within and beyond Christianity, including his many afterlives in literature and the arts, social justice, and world religions during the past two thousand years and especially in the present global context.

The first volume, Historical Afterlives, focusses on explicitly Christian afterlives, exploring how scripture passages relating to Jesus have been interpreted, as well as how patristic writers, Byzantine coins, mand contemporary social insights engage with Jesus.

In the second volume, Interfaith Afterlives, the focus is on the diverse ways that Jesus was understood in other faith traditions. Jesus has significant afterlives in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Ruism and Mormonism, as well as assorted secular afterlives in progressive Christianity.

In volume three, Cultural Afterlives, a range of writers reflect on how Jesus has been proclaimed, appropriated, and adapted into a range of cultures—Indigenous Australian, Māori, Pacific, and Asian Jesus; the “Jesus of King’s Cross”, Jesus in post-colonial art, in comedic film, in feminist understanding.

The contributors include religion scholars from the respective traditions, as well as faith practitioners reflecting on Jesus within their own religious context. While the essays are all grounded in critical scholarship, reflective practice, or both, they are expressed in nontechnical language that is accessible to interested nonspecialists.

Australian theologian Dr Val Webb says that the work offers “a wonderful sweep of ‘afterlives’ that free Jesus of Nazareth from the confines of Christian orthodoxy, a Jesus who has fed the imagination of people, cultures, and contexts far beyond the streets of Jerusalem and Rome.” Professor Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, of the University of Divinity, observes that “the rich set of afterlives discussed here provoke conversation in terms of our continued life, faith, and reflection on the Jesus of History and the Christ of faith”.

Professor Arthur Dewey, of Xavier University, rejoices that, in reading these volumes, “we slowly begin to realise that Jesus is no longer embalmed in doctrinal winding sheets; he has slipped ecclesial controls and continues his walkabout on this fragile planet.” He continues, “whether reading the Jesus traditions anew through indigenous eyes or recognizing how the tradition itself emerged within the lethal atmosphere of patriarchy, the authors challenge us to nothing less than a radical revisioning of that elusive and alluring figure, dancing in the unnoticed gaps and crevices of our planet”.

Greg Jenks has done a fine job in commissioning and editing the 33 essays included in these three volumes. The contents of each volume and a link to order The Afterlives of Jesus in hardcopy can be found at https://afterlives.org

The Kingdom: showing the character of Christ—not a culture of celebrity

I recently watched the SBS documentary entitled The Kingdom. The story that was told in this documentary canvassed recent events relating to Hillsong, and included interviews and visits to other Pentecostal churches in both Australia and the United States of America.

The documentary had a clear thread running throughout, of how a person found acceptance and support within the Pentecostal world. Marc Fennell, who narrates the documentary, offers a very personal testimony of his involvement, throughout his childhood, in Hillsong and “a number of other Pentecostal churches”, until the point, 17 years ago, when he decided that this was no longer for him. He left—the first time he set foot back into a Pentecostal church was during the making of this documentary.

The honesty of the personal angst of Fennell runs through the documentary, giving it authenticity and integrity. He was exploring Hillsong from the vantage point of a person who had known very well what the experiences of worship and participation was like. He made it clear how important to him was the support and friendship of people within the churches he attended, especially since his family situation was apparently rather difficult. Fennell was loved and valued by people at Hillsong and other churches—even though, in his innermost being, he was not able to enter into the intense emotional experience of Pentecostal worship.

There are moments of pathos in the documentary, as Fennell offers personal revelations about his own spirituality. He showed great courage in what he decided to say in this very public national forum. (The documentary was broadcast by SBS and remains able to be viewed on SBS On Demand.)

*****

Woven in and through this personal thread is another, more dominant, thread, which becomes the reason for making the documentary. The failures of Hillsong have become known, piece by piece, over the past four years. Like any church—like any organisation run by, and for, human beings—there will always be problems, brought about by the deficiencies of people involved, and in some cases by the deliberate efforts of some to benefit personally. All human organisations are fallible.

In Hillsong’s case, however, those deficiencies were magnified by the way that key leadership operated. A particular culture was created, which exploited people. It is true that many people have been helped by the ministries of Hillsong, to a greater or lesser degree, over the years. Many (myself included) have enjoyed singing and playing some of their better songs. But many also have been hurt and exploited by leaders in Hillsong in that same period. The culture that was created was toxic and abusive for far too many people.

I was waiting, throughout the documentary, to hear how Fennell would describe the culture that was fostered within Hillsong. He touched on a number of bad elements in the way that Hillsong operated. Abuse of volunteers was canvassed early on. The “Prosperity Gospel” push to encourage participants to tithe—and to give beyond that tithing so that it hurt them financially—was examined. Accusations of fraud perpetrated by those with access to the finances of the organisation was discussed, including money laundering and tax evasion.

Eventually, the documentary came to identify the issue that had most strongly been reported by mainstream media: various sexual encounters by people in leadership, and the infidelity of key leaders, both in Sydney and elsewhere around the world. (Hillsong is a “global phenomenon”.) The paedophilic abuse perpetrated by Frank Houston, the founder of Hillsong (in the days when it was known as the Christian Life Centre) was also reported, and there is a court case involving his son, Brian, that is ongoing.

So the documentary gave some hints to what I consider to be the key to all of this: the culture of celebrity which permeated the organisation, from the onstage worship leaders, musicians, and preachers, through the pastoral workers, even to some the financial and administrative workers.

All that the leadership of Hillsong seemed concerned about was to focus on ensuring that “the experience” of Hillsong was fabulous, and that it grew month by month and year by year. Growth in numbers was the key metric, indeed (so it seems) the only metric. The way to ensure that growth was by providing ever-increasing endorphin hits of pleasure. And celebrity was the way to generate enthusiasm and maintain the growth trajectory. So a culture of celebrity was nurtured.

All of this, of course, is contradictory to the Gospel that Jesus preached and lived. He advocated humility; “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”, not “build up your leaders to be seen as grand and exciting figures”. He instructed people not to store up wealth on earth; “sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor”, not “call for tithes and more to fund an increasingly extravagant lifestyle of the leaders”.

Jesus encouraged his disciples by saying “whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me”, not “see children as potential targets for grooming and sexual abuse”. This is the character of Christ that we know from the Gospels. This is the culture that churches should seek to emulate.

*****

The documentary is being widely applauded as being “a pretty fair treatment”, as “balanced” in how it reports on Hillsong. I have seen it described as “thoughtful”, which it was; as “honest”, which I agree it was. But my sense is that it lacks a critical lense on the whole phenomenon, from the point of view of faith (and by this, I mean faith as Jesus taught and lived it, not how Hillsong portrayed it).

A critical theological assessment is really needed—and Marc Fennell is not able to provide this, because he is explicitly NOT a believer and certainly does not have theological training.

So my sense is that the title, The Kingdom, invites people of faith to reflect further. Whose Kingdom? Fennell posed this question in terms of “who inherits the Hillsong mantle?” What Pentecostal churches are manoeuvring to fill the gap that is opening up, as people leave Hillsong? Whilst that’s a worthwhile question to explore, that’s not what The Kingdom implies to me.

The Kingdom was what Jesus proclaimed. The Kingdom was what he taught in his parables. The Kingdom coming near was the message that he gave to his disciples, for them to spread far and wide. And what was that Kingdom? A realm in which God’s compassion and justice would be known and experienced and lived.

In this realm, outsiders are to be welcomed—children, those marginalised, those challenged by life, and people identifying somewhere within the LGBTIQA+ spectrum, and placed them at the centre. A place and a time where relationships would be genuine, empathic, and nourishing. A place and a time marked by the characteristics of Christ.

It’s in relation to this final observation that I have one more comment. Nothing in the documentary indicated the discriminatory way that Hillsong has dealt with LGBTIQA+ people. There have been high profile instances of such people being removed from leadership positions. The church is not “gay-friendly”. I can only presume that there are other instances of discriminatory behaviour directed towards LGBTIQA+ people which have not received publicity. Omitting mention of this is a deficiency in how Hillsong was presented in the documentary.

All in all, I join my voice with others who have said, about the documentary, The Kingdom: yes, watch this. It is worth devoting time to see it. But watch it with critical eyes. Watch it with the knowledge of who God is, how Jesus speaks about God, and what God’s Kingdom is like.

Watch it, and weep. Weep for those abused and ostracised. Weep for those conned by the culture of celebrity. Weep for those struggling to rebuild lives and faith after traumatic experiences. Watch it with eyes wide open, hearts reaching out, and faith in the Kingdom into which Jesus invites us all to share. For this Kingdom will exude the character of Christ.

We have obtained access to this grace (Romans 5, Pentecost 3A)

During Lent we heard a key passage from Romans, much of which is offered again as the Epistle reading for this coming Sunday. It is a passage replete with fundamental theological affirmations (Rom 5:1–11, Lent 3A; Rom 5:1–8, Pentecost 3A). In an earlier blog, we explored two of the key elements that Paul sets out in this passage: being made righteous by faith, a central affirmation for the apostle; and being at peace with God.

In this post, as we revisit this passage for the Third Sunday after Pentecost, we look at other theological aspects of Paul’s writing. Paul writes this letter to a group of faith communities which include both Jews and Gentiles; this is a fundamental commitment in his theology and practice (Rom 3:29; 4:11–12; 9:22–24; 11:11–14; 15:7–13) and the list of names in 16:3–16 indicate that people of both Jewish and Gentile origins were present. Nevertheless, the theological commitments that Paul articulates here have strong Jewish origins.

Access to God’s grace (v.2) is a fundamental element in Paul’s affirmation in Rom 5:1–11, as well as in his whole body of writings. (I am here canvassing just the seven letters generally accepted as authentic to Paul.) God’s grace is what gripped Paul, calling him to his work as apostle, preaching the Gospel, establishing new communities of faith, and nurturing them as new disciples.

It is through Jesus, says Paul, that “we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name” (Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 3:10; 15:10; 2 Cor 1:12; Gal 1:15). That grace is evident in the lives of believers in Corinth (1 Cor 1:4) and Philippi (Phil 1:7); by contrast, the Galatians, in Paul’s eyes, “are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospels (Gal 1:6).

Paul is drawing on his Jewish heritage and the understanding of God in Hebrew Scripture. God’s graciousness was repeatedly offered to the people of Israel (Exod 34:6; Num 6:25; 1 Sam 1:22; 2 Ki 13:23; 2 Chron 30:9; Ezra 7:9; 8:18, 22; Neh 2:8, 18; 9:17, 31).

Prophets declared that God yearned to be gracious (Isa 30:18–19; 63:7; Joel 2:13; Amos 5:15; Jonah 4:2; Zech 1:13), as do the psalmists (Ps 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; 116:5; 135:3; 145:8, 13;147:1). The prophets therefore implore the Lord to manifest that grace (Isa 33:2; Mal 1:9), as do the psalmists (Ps 4:1; 6:2; 9:13;25:16; 26:11; 27:7; 30:10; 31:9; 41:4, 10; 56:1; 67:1; 86:3, 16; 119:58, 132). Grace is a fundamental scriptural concept, integral to the nature of God.

*****

Sharing in the glory of God (v.2) follows; in this regard, Paul also draws from his Jewish heritage. The glory of God is present in the stories that recount the formation of Israel, through the years in the wilderness (Exod 16:6–10; Num 14:22), on Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16–17; Deut 5:22–24), in the Tabernacle (Exod 40:34–35; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10; 16:19, 42; 20:16), and in the temple (1 Ki 8:1–11; 2 Chron 7:1–4).

The psalmists reinforce the notion that the glory resides in the sanctuary (Ps 26:8; 63:2; 102:16; Hag 2:3) and in the land of Israel (Ps 85:9). In some psalms the realm of God’s glory is extended to be “over the waters” (Ps 29:1–4), “over all the earth” (Ps 57:5; 72:19; 97:6; 102:15; 108:5; also Isa 6:3; 24:15–16; 60:1–2; Hab 2:14) and even to “the heavens” (Ps 19:1; 113:4; 148:13; and Hab 3:3).

The concept of God’s glory plays an important role in Paul’s argument in Romans. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, Paul brazenly declares (Rom 3:23); some who claim to know God “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being” (1:23), in contrast to “those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour”, to whom “glory and honour and peace” will be given (2:7, 10).

To Abraham, who “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God”, his faith would be “reckoned as righteousness” (4:20–22). In God’s time, “the freedom of the glory of the children of God” will given to the creation (8:21). Within the communities of faith in Rome, the imperative of “welcoming one another” is to be done “for the glory of God” (15:7). This glory is God’s gift to people of faith, and indeed to the whole creation.

*****

The next important theological claim, the connection of sufferings and endurance with hope (vv.3–5), is a link that is made elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Paul itemises the sufferings that he has experienced throughout his ministry (2 Cor 6:3–10; 11:24–29; see also 1 Cor 4:9–13; 15:30–32; 2 Cor 12:10; Phil 4:12; 1 Thess 2:2)—all of which fulfils the second element of the call which Luke claims that Paul received from God, “I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” (Acts 9:16).

The hope in God that Paul holds fast throughout those sufferings is also quite clearly expressed (Rom 8:22–25; and especially in 2 Cor 1:3–11). “Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering”, he advises the Romans (12:12), and he informs them that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (15:4).

Indeed, the long saga of Israel told in those writings is a story of hoping in the face of sufferings: hoping for the promise declared to Abraham, hoping for liberation whilst in the oppressive conditions of Egypt, hoping to reach the promised land throughout the years of wilderness wandering; and then, centuries later, hoping for release from the second captivity of Exile, and hoping for the restoration and rebuilding of city and land to last long into the future.

Just as story of Israel can be told in terms of hope, so faithful people through the ages sang of hoping in the steadfast love of the Lord (Ps 33:18; 147:11), in the ordinances of the Lord (Ps 119:43) and the word of the Lord (Ps 119:81, 114, 147; 130:5). The invocation to “hope in God” is a regular refrain in the psalms (Ps 42:5, 11; 43:5; 130:7; 131:3). “Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God”, says one psalmist (Ps 146:5); another sings “God of our salvation, you are the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas” (Ps 65:5).

*****

After grace, glory, and hope, Paul next refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit (v.5), the means by which “God’s live has been poured into our hearts”. In his first letter to Corinth, the activity of the Spirit is a central focus (1 Cor 2:9–16; 3:16; 6:19;12:3–11) and is especially in view in the manifestation of spiritual gifts within the community (1 Cor 14:1–40).

To the Romans, Paul explains that it was “the spirit of holiness” who raised Jesus from death (Rom 1:4) and who now “dwells in you” (Rom 8:11), helping believers “in our weakness” and enabling them to “pray as we ought” (Rom 8:26). He exhorts them to “be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord” (Rom 12:11), to “abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15:13), and “by the love of the Spirit, join me in earnest prayer to God on my behalf” (Rom 15:30).

The Spirit was active throughout Hebrew Scripture. Ezra recalls that “you gave your good spirit to instruct them, and did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and gave them water for their thirst” (Neh 9:20–22). It was the work of the Spirit to release the captives from Egypt, lead them through the challenges of the wilderness, and then bring them into the promised land..

The Spirit which had guided Moses and was then gifted to chosen elders (Num 11:16–25) was subsequently imparted to Joshua (Num 27:18; Deut 34:9) and then to a string of Judges: Othniel (Judg 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and Samson (13:24–25; 14:6,19; 15:14). Each of these men led their people through dangerous, challenging, and turbulent experiences, as they sought to impose Israelite domination on the peoples already living in Canaan.

And in Exile, as they reflected on the whole sweep of the story of Israel and placed it into a grand cosmic context, the priests gave the Spirit pride of place in their account of creation: “the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind [or a spirit] from God swept over the face of the waters” (Gen 1:2). The Spirit is present and active in the pages of Hebrew Scripture!

*****

In the following verses, Paul offers a clear salvific interpretation of the death of Jesus when he declares that “Christ died for the ungodly” (v.6), that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (v.8). This is another central element in the theological structure that Paul, throughout his letters, demonstrates. And it, to, can best be understood in the light of the development of thinking throughout the story of Israel.

What follows are two striking affirmations about Jesus. The first is that “we have been justified by his blood” (v.9). This appears to have been an early credal-like claim within the early Christian movement; it appears in various forms at Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20; Heb 9:14; 10:19; 12:24; 13:12, 20; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5; 5:9;12:11.

The claim made depends on ancient Hebraic understandings of life and the role that blood plays in that. “You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood”, Noah is commanded (Gen 9:4); “the life of the flesh is in the blood”, the Lord declares to Moses (Lev 17:11). This understanding undergirds the whole sacrificial system; when sacrifices are made, blood must be shed, for “I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement” (Lev 17:11; also Deut 12:23). Thus, a much later priestly writer is able to claim, “under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22).

Paul then follows with the assertion that, through the shedding of this blood and the death which ensues, “we will be saved through him from the wrath of God” (v.9). This particular claim brings us to what is seen by many as the most difficult aspect of Christian belief; the heart of the doctrine of the Atonement is based on the premise of endemic human sinfulness which merits the unrelenting wrath of God as punishment. I’ve addressed the difficulties in this view of the human being at

Original Sin? or Innate Goodness? (Genesis 2, Romans 5; Lent 1A)

Paul is well aware of the place that “the wrath of God” had in what the prophets spoke about (Isa 1:24; 13:9, 13; 51:17; 63:1–6; Jer 7:20; 18:3–7; 25:15; 32:30–41;42:18–19; 44:6; 50:25; Ezek 7:5–12; 8:18; 13:13–16; 20:8–32; 22:20–22; 36:18; 38:18–19; Dan 8:19; 11:36; Hos 5:10; Amos 1:11–12; Micah 5:10–15; Nah 1:6; Zeph 1:15–18; 2:1–3; Zech 7:12; 8:14). As Nahum succinctly declares,”a jealous and avenging God is the Lord, the Lord is avenging and wrathful” (Nah 1:2).

His argument in his letter to the Romans is premised on the need to find a way to deal with God’s wrath, which is “revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness” (Rom 1:18). On “the day of wrath … God’s righteous judgement will be revealed” (2:5), such that “for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (2:8).

Paul asserts that it is not unjust for God to inflict wrath on us (3:5), and so the remedy that he proposes is that God “put forward [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith … to show his righteousness” (3:25). Jesus is the central means by which human sin is dealt with; this is a repeated motif in Paul’s letters, for in five of his seven letters he asserts that “Christ died for us” (Rom 5:6,8; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11, 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14–15; Gal 2:21; and 1 Thess 5:10). This claim is reminiscent of Jesus’ saying that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

Certainly, atoning for sin is a central ritual in the Torah (Exod 30:10 and the details set out in Lev 1, 4–5). Thus, “the blood of the covenant” sealed under Moses (Exod 24:8; Heb 9:20) is renewed through Jesus (Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; Heb 7:22; 8:6–13; 9:15–17; 10:12–17;12:24). Paul is adopting, extending, and reinterpreting this language in the way that he explains the significance of the death of Jesus.

See more at

‘Christ died for us’: reflections on sacrifice and atonement

*****

Throughout the compressed argument of this very rich section, Paul uses multiple images to interpret the significance of the death of Jesus. The final image is reconciliation, drawn from interpersonal relationships: “having been reconciled, we will be saved by his life” (v.10), and that it is “through our Lord Jesus Christ [that] we have now received reconciliation” (v.11).

Reconciliation is to the fore in part of what we know as Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. It was actually his fourth letter; 1 Cor 5:9 indicates a letter was sent prior to 1 Cor itself, while 2 Cor 2:3–4 and 7:8 indicate a further “painful letter” was sent in between the letters we know as 1 Cor and 2 Cor. He has obviously had a fractious relationship with the believers in Corinth; much of the first long section of this (fourth) letter to them is seeking to repair relationships.

In encouraging the believers in Corinth in the midst of their distress (2 Cor 1:6–7), Paul writes about being “treasure in clay jars” (4:7), not losing heart (4:16), and walking by faith, not sight (5:7). In this context, he sets out a detailed exposition of “the ministry of reconciliation” (5:11–21). What he offers the Corinthians is “the message of reconciliation” (5:19), that they should “be reconciled to God” (5:20), to “become the righteousness of God” (5:21).

This motif of reconciliation is taken up in later letters written by students of Paul. One, writing to “the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae”, declares that in Christ, “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”, and affirming that “through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross” (Col 1:19–20). The reconciliation effected by Jesus, in this view, had a cosmic scope and impact.

Another student, in creating a letter which most likely was originally a circular letter to a number of churches, took this motif as the key to understanding how Jews and Gentiles were both to be included within the people of God. (We know this letter, because of a textual variant in the opening verses, as Ephesians.)

Writing with Gentiles in mind, the author of this letter declares that “now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13). Accordingly, Christ “is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (2:14).

The writer declares that Jesus abolished the law (a statement that goes beyond what Paul ever wrote), “that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it” (2:15–16). Reconciliation, manifested in social relationships, is the central feature of the church. This is a clear and pertinent application of the view that Paul had expressed in Rom 5:10–11 and 2 Cor 5:11–21.

What a rich passage!

“Go nowhere among the Gentiles” (Matt 10:5): the mission of Jesus in the book of origins (Pentecost 3A)

Jesus had a mission to the Gentiles. The mission to the Gentiles was “the fundamental missionary dimension of Jesus’ earthly ministry”—so wrote the guru of modern missiological studies, David Bosch (Transforming Mission, p. 30). And thus, every theology of mission since that paradigm-shifting work of 1991 has echoed this claim as a given fact.

But when we turn to this week’s Gospel passage, we read that Jesus instructed his followers: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:5-6). What is going on?

This is a very distinctive claim to make. Other New Testament books have a different take—Jesus did engage with Gentiles, even with Samaritans, and did encourage a mission to the wider Gentile world. And plenty of New Testament texts can be pulled out to support this claim.

In Mark’s Gospel, in the story of the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:14–21), the healed man begs to be taken with Jesus. Jesus tells him to go home, and spread the story of the Lord’s mercy. This he does throughout the Decapolis—which was Gentile territory! The first evangelist, according to Mark, was a missionary to the Gentiles.

The Matthean Jesus, unlike the Lukan Jesus, never goes near Samaria (Luke 17:11–19), nor does he speak favourably about Samaritans, as he does in Luke (10:25–37), prefiguring the Lukan mission to Samaria (Acts 1:8; 8:4–25).

And in John’s Gospel, the first person who tells many others about Jesus is a woman whom Jesus meets when he is travelling through Samaria (John 4:5–26). After her discussion with Jesus, “the woman left her water jar and went back to the city, and said to the people, ‘Come and see a man who told me everything …he cannot be the Messiah, can he?’” (John 4:28–29). As a result of what she says, “many Samaritans in that city believed in him” (John 4:39); the first evangelist in John’s narrative is a Samaritan wo

Not in Matthew’s Gospel, however. Jesus does not go amongst Gentiles. Or Samaritans. Just as the disciples of Jesus are entirely drawn from Jewish people in Matthew’s Gospel, so also Matthew makes it very clear that Jesus’ mission is “only to the lost sheep of Israel”—that is, exclusively to the Jewish people.

My wife Elizabeth and I have had many conversations about this aspect of the Gospel according to Matthew. She has undertaken thorough research into the Jewish nature of this Gospel, and especially on how Jesus related to Gentiles. What follows is drawn from our conversations and particularly from the research of Elizabeth, as we have written this material together.

*****

The section of the book of origins that we are offered as the Gospel reading this coming Sunday (Matt 9:35–10:8) ought to be familiar. The first verse (9:35) is an almost-exact repeat of an earlier verse (4:23). The same three activities of Jesus are noted—teaching, proclaiming the good news, and curing disease. The earlier verse introduced the activity of Jesus in Galilee; this later version broadens the area where Jesus was active to “all the cities and villages”.

However, Jesus is still in Jewish territory; he had returned “to his home town” earlier (9:1) and emphasises that his followers are not to go into Gentile territory (10:5)—an instruction which he presumably maintains himself, for he tells them “go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6) and later affirms that “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24).

This neat repetition of the whole verse that provides an inclusio—a literary device which bundles together all the material in between the two occurrences of the same sentence. The extended set of teachings that Jesus gave (5:—7:29), as well as the healings (8:1–17; 8:28–9:8; 9:18–34) are collated into a broader and comprehensive introduction to the mission of Jesus, which, as he indicates soon after, is to the Jews only (10:5).

Also included in this section is the call of Matthew (9:9), to match the earlier call of the first four disciples (4:18–22), and the warnings that Jesus issues about the difficulty of following him (8:18–21), which is followed by Jesus stilling the storm (8:22–27), which climaxes in the key question, posed by the disciples, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (8:27; the allusion is to a psalm praising the Lord that, amongst other things, “you silence the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, the tumult of the peoples” (Ps 65:7).

Matthew finds a report of the mission of the twelve in one of his sources, the Gospel we attribute to Mark (Mark 6:8–11). The statement about going “only to the lost sheep of Israel” (10:5–6), in the mission directives to the twelve disciples, is clearly an addition to the original Markan passage. In this distinctive Matthean statement, Jesus directs that Gentile (and Samaritan) towns are to be avoided.

There is, as we have noted, a second statement to this effect in this Gospel, when Jesus encounters a Gentile woman on the northern borders of Galilee. This also is a clear redactional addition to an account already found in Mark (Mark 7:24–30). In Matthew’s version, he declares, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24). There is nothing of this in Mark’s report of this encounter.

A third Matthean statement about mission, the “Great Commission” (28:16–20), is completely different, as the disciples are commanded to go out and actively “make disciples of all nations”. This command correlates with nothing at all in the body of the Gospel, during the earthly period of Jesus’ life. The mission to the Gentiles is an entirely post-resurrection phenomenon.

So the two major statements of mission to Israel in this Gospel, as well as other accounts of the activities and ministry of Jesus, contain a number of significant differences to that of Mark and Luke. The ministry of both Jesus and the disciples is geographically quite limited in Matthew’s account.

*****

Jesus rarely sets foot on any Gentile soil in this Gospel. In Matt 15:29–31, there is no tour through Sidon and the Decapolis as is reported in Mark (Mark 7:31–37), and no missionary activity undertaken by the demoniac after the demons have been exorcised from him (Mark 5:1–20; compare Matt 8:28–34).

The Matthean Jesus never goes near Samaria (contrast with Luke 17:11–19 and John 4:1– 42), nor does he speak favourably about Samaritans, as he does in Luke (Luke 10:25–37), prefiguring the Lukan mission to Samaria (Acts 1:8; 8:5-25). The activities of Jesus and the disciples are concentrated in the Galilean area, and on the Jewish people.

In Matthew‘s account, there are no Gentiles who are intentionally sought out by either Jesus or the disciples. Rather, there are just a select number of Gentiles who seek out Jesus. They come to him; he does not approach them or seek them out. (I am indebted to Elizabeth for this striking observation.) In two instances, it is their faith which includes them in the kingdom of God (the centurion in Capernaum, 8:10, 13; the Canaanite woman in Tyre and Sidon, 15:28).

Ultimately, Jesus says to the Jews, “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom” (21:43). He is not here saying that the kingdom will be opened to the Gentiles per se; his words are directed towards the chief priests and Pharisees (as 21:45 indicates).

It is those Jews who “produce the fruits of the kingdom” who will be given entry to the kingdom. Those who do “produce the fruits of the kingdom” include those normally considered as “unclean” by the Pharisees, and therefore outcasts or rejects from Judaism (9:10–13; 21:31, 32).

Jesus’ discourses and acts of healing, in general, involve only Jews. His contact with Gentiles, when it occurs in the Gospel, is always highly significant, and designed to illuminate some aspect of Jesus’ teaching or person regarding authority, inheritance of the kingdom, discipleship or messiahship.

It is noteworthy that those occasions when a person is asked whether they have faith before Jesus will heal them, are only when Gentiles are involved. Jesus readily heals Jewish people without requesting a prior faith statement (4:24; 8:3; 8:15; 12:13; 12:22; 14:36; 15:31; 21:14).

*****

More recent Matthean scholarship has recognised the Jewish character of this Gospel, and a consensus is emerging that this work was most likely written for a community that was still immersed within its Jewish tradition. It appears that members of this community had been ostracised and persecuted by other Jews (including their families) who did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. They did not withdraw voluntarily from their local synagogues, but still operated as a group under Jewish authority (10:17; 23:34).

This community is still directly under Jewish law; the clear words of Jesus that are remembered and repeated are “the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it” (23:1-3). That law is not to be abolished, but fulfilled (5:17); it remains “until all is accomplished” (5:18).

In the teachings of Jesus which are recalled in this community, their faithfulness in the midst of persecution is valued (5:10–12); they report that Jesus identifies this persecution as taking place “on my account” (5:11; see also 10:18, 39; 16:25; 19:29). Thus the difference between this community and many other Jews of the time was the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

Judaism was in a state of flux in the middle to late decades of the first century. The pivotal moment looks, from the benefit of hindsight, to have been the a Jewish-Roman War of 66-74 CE, and particularly the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple which took place in 70 CE, in the middle of this war.

Things were different after the Temple was rendered unusable. That is often taken as a marker for understanding events in the period of the New Testament, certainly, it is a key marker for understanding the major shifts that took place within Judaism—with no Temple in place, the importance of synagogues as gathering places in towns and cities across Israel (and beyond) grew.

What little evidence we do have from this general period indicates that there were a number of sectarian groups within Judaism, which were contesting with each other for recognition and influence. During this period, the Pharisees were becoming increasingly important as an alternative to the Temple cult, and emerging as the dominant Jewish religious movement. Their power base was moved from Jerusalem and spread throughout the area. They were well-placed to take advantage, as it were, of the situation when the Temple no longer served as a focal point for Jews.

Nevertheless, many Jews, particularly in the Diaspora, were not yet “Pharisaic”—they did not see their faith in the same way as the Pharisees. There were many disputes amongst Jewish communities as to the correct way of seeing things, and some of these disputes were quite bitter.

Many groups claimed to be the ‘true Israel’ as distinct from other groups, who were false leaders and teachers, and who failed to follow the Law correctly. The Law became the most accessible means of revealing God’s will for Israel after the destruction of the Temple, and most of these groups focused on what they believed to be the true interpretation and application of it.

The synagogues were the places where the Law was studied and discussed, where it was preached and understood. The synagogue was where the scribes and Pharisees most naturally operated. The Pharisees thus grew in significance over time. They had established synagogues decades before Jesus was born. After 70 CE, synagogues became the key gathering place for Jews, both within Israel, and across the Dispersion.

*****

Matthew’s Gospel reflects one such debate, between the authorities in the synagogues and the followers of Jesus. Biblical scholars suggest that this Gospel should be read alongside of other literature from after the time of the destruction of the Temple—books such as 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and the Psalms of Solomon. This literature is trying to envisage what Judaism should be like in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple. Understanding and living by the Law is central in each of these documents.

Thus, although Matthew’s Gospel has been seen to have played an important role in the formation of early Christian theology, a more natural interpretation is to locate this Gospel within the first century Jewish debates about how the Law is best to be understood and applied.

These debates took on even more intensity after 70 CE. The survival of Judaism without the Temple depended on the faithful practice of the Law: all of its commandments and instructions. The polemic in Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees, and the warnings that are uttered to Israel, show that Matthew still had hope that his ideas would become normative for all Jewish people.

If the author of this Gospel knew anything about what was happening elsewhere, he would have known about the gathering strength of the movement led by Saul of Tarsus, for whom strict obedience to Torah was of less importance than belief in Jesus as Messiah.

This arm of the movement was opening a door wide for Gentiles, who did not follow the Torah, to belong to such communities. This had been underway since the 50s. It had gained momentum by the late 60s and would become the dominant form of Christianity later in the second century.

It was perhaps with this awareness that Matthew’s Gospel was created—to insist on the centrality and priority of the traditional teaching of Jesus, the Torah-observant Jew, whom God had chosen as the anointed one. And the picture that he offers of Jesus is a resolutely Jewish one. Remembering that Jesus said “Go nowhere among the Gentiles” (10:5) makes perfect sense in this context.

(In fact, I think that this Gospel might more accurately reflect the activity of the historical Jesus during his earthly activities—he was a faithful Jew who observed Torah and advocated for his particular interpretation of how the commandments were to be kept. Staying away from Gentiles and Samaritans would be a perfectly respectable course of action for such a person.)

So, in reporting the words of Jesus about mission, and in insisting on the thoroughly Jewish nature of this movement, this really is “the book of origins”. This is how I translate the opening phrase (1:1). Usually this phrase is related to the story that follows, about the origins of Jesus (1:1–2:23). And that makes sense.

In a broader sense, however, the author of the book of origins is making a pitch about the true nature of the movement that was formed by Jesus.

Jesus instigated a prophetic movement to renew the people of Israel, to recall them to the prophetic heart of their traditions and restore the sense of righteous-justice that was fundamental to his understanding of Judaism. That is the real story of our origins, the author of this book is declaring.

******

This blog draws on material in MESSIAH, MOUNTAINS, AND MISSION: an exploration of the Gospel for Year A, by Elizabeth Raine and John Squires (self-published 2012)

See also

https://johntsquires.com/2019/11/28/leaving-luke-meeting-matthew/

https://johntsquires.com/2020/02/13/you-have-heard-it-said-but-i-say-to-you-matt-5/

https://johntsquires.com/2020/02/06/an-excess-of-righteous-justice-matt-5/

https://johntsquires.com/2020/01/30/blessed-are-you-the-beatitudes-of-matthew-5/